93-002043 Division Of Real Estate vs. Robert A. Schwartz Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, May 26, 1994.

Summary: Resondent guilty of breach of trust but not of failing to return deposit upon demand. 5 year suspension but reduced if return fees to client.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2043

)

ROBERT A. SCHWARTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Errol H.

Powell, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative

Hearings, on October 13, 1993, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: James H. Gillis, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Division of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801-1772

For Respondent: Robert A. Schwartz, pro se 1/

295 Pine Shadow Way

West Palm Beach, Florida 33414

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondent

committed the offenses set forth in Petitioner's amended administrative

complaint, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against

Respondent's real estate license.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 25, 1993, the Department of Professional Regulation 2/ ,

Division of Real Estate (Petitioner), filed an amended administrative complaint,

with supporting documents, against Robert A. Schwartz (Respondent). Petitioner

alleged in the amended administrative complaint that Respondent had violated

Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), by being guilty of fraud,

misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest

dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in

any business transaction; and Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (1991),

by being guilty of failure to account or deliver a deposit. Because of the

alleged violations, Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's license as a

real estate broker.

On April 6, 1993, Respondent filed an election of rights with Petitioner

requesting a formal hearing. On April 12, 1993, the matter was referred to the

Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. A

formal hearing was scheduled on October 13, 1993, pursuant to notice.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three

witnesses, including Respondent, and entered 12 exhibits into evidence. 3/

Petitioner testified on his own behalf, presenting no other witnesses, and

entered no exhibits into evidence.

A transcript of the formal hearing was ordered. At the request of the

parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten

days following the conclusion of the hearing. Subsequently, Respondent was

granted additional time in which to file his post-hearing submissions. Both

Petitioner and Respondent filed proposed findings of fact which are addressed in

the appendix to this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of

Real Estate (Petitioner), is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged

with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed

pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated

pursuant thereto.

2. At all times material hereto, Robert A. Schwartz (Respondent) was a

Florida licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0481297,

with an address of American Real Estate Properties, Inc., 13833 Wellington

Trace, West Palm Beach, Florida.

3. Respondent was initially licensed on or about May 23, 1988.

4. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying broker and

officer of American Real Estate Properties, Inc. (American Real Estate).

5. On or about May 18, 1992, Respondent met with Ms. Renate Schuetze in

West Palm Beach. 4/ Ms. Schuetze was from the State of New York and was

interested in buying lots, building homes on the lots and renting the homes.

Respondent had been referred to Ms. Schuetze by her friend, Ms. Mary Ann Runer.

6. A few years ago, on behalf of Ms. Runer and using monies provided by

her, Respondent had purchased a lot in West Palm Beach, overseen the contracting

and construction of her home on the lot and rented out the home. All for which

he charged Ms. Runer a fee. Ms. Schuetze wanted Respondent to do the same for

her.

7. On that same day, after meeting with Respondent, visiting prospective

lots and model homes with him and discussing his process and procedure, Ms.

Schuetze gave Respondent a check for $15,120 made payable to American Real

Estate and returned to New York. Although Ms. Schuetze noted on the check that

the money was for a deposit on one of the model homes, the monies were actually

for a deposit of $2,000 on two certain lots ($1,000 each) and Respondent's fee

of $13,000 ($6,500 per house) 5/ for performing the same service for her that

he had performed for Ms. Runer. Ms. Schuetze wanted to pay Respondent his fee

in advance instead of waiting until the homes had been built and rented. This

was the first time that Respondent had received his fee in advance.

8. The following day, on May 19, 1992, Respondent deposited the $15,120

into the operating account of American Real Estate which did not have an escrow

account. Furthermore, Respondent had no intentions of opening an escrow

account.

9. However, the day before, on May 18, 1992, Respondent wrote two checks

for $1,000 each to Miki S. Murray Realty (Murray Realty) for a deposit on two

certain lots on behalf of Ms. Schuetze, leaving a balance of $13,120 from the

monies given by her to Respondent. The deposits held the lots for Ms. Schuetze.

10. On May 19, 1992, Murray Realty completed a document entitled

"Reservation Deposit" for each of the lots. The document represented an

acknowledgment of a deposit and the terms associated therewith. Murray Realty

sold the lots and the homes to be constructed as a package deal. Each

Reservation Deposit indicated, among other things, a lot deposit of $1,000 on a

certain lot, the location of the lot, the purchase price of the house to be

constructed on the lot, the representative for the builder/seller (Murray

Realty), and the buyer who was indicated as Respondent.

11. Also, each Reservation Deposit indicated that the deposit was an

"earnest money deposit," that the contract was to be entered into on June 10,

1992, and that the deposit could be returned for any reason on or before June

10, 1992. Murray Realty required no further monies until after the signing of a

contract for purchase from which construction draws would come from an account

specifically setup for that purpose.

12. This was not the first time that Respondent had entered into such a

transaction with Murray Realty. Respondent used the same transaction for Ms.

Runer.

13. From on or about May 12, 1992, through on or about June 1, 1992,

Respondent wrote checks from American Real Estate's operating account, totalling

$10,403.01, from the remaining $13,120 given to Respondent by Ms. Schuetze. The

expenditures were for Respondent's own use and benefit; none were associated

with the services requested by Ms. Schuetze.

14. On or about June 1, 1992, Respondent sent a completed contract for

sale and purchase of the lots and homes and a blank buyer-broker contract, by

express mail, to Ms. Schuetze for her signature. The contract for sale and

purchase reflected that a "deposit" of $15,120 had been paid to American Real

Estate, as seller, toward the purchase price and that the deposit was being held

in "escrow." The blank buyer-broker agreement contained spaces for Respondent

to insert an agreed upon fee but these were also left blank. Prior to sending

these documents, Respondent had discussed the contracts with her and informed

her that he was sending them to her.

15. At the same time, on or about June 1, 1992, Ms. Schuetze wrote to

Respondent requesting the return of her "deposit" of $15,120 within three days,

indicating that she had decided not to sign a contract for the purchase of the

homes.

16. After she received the contracts, Ms. Schuetze returned them to

Respondent unsigned.

17. At no time prior to June 1, 1992, had Respondent presented to Ms.

Schuetze for her signature a buyer-broker contract or a contract for sale and

purchase. At no time pertinent hereto has Ms. Schuetze executed a buyer-broker

contract or a contract for sale and purchase.

18. Not having received a response to her letter of June 1, 1992, on or

about June 8, 1992, Ms. Schuetze again made a demand by way of a letter for

return of the $15,120 within three days.

19. On or about June 11, 1992, at the request of Ms. Schuetze, Murray

Realty returned her deposit of $2,000 on the two lots. At that time, Respondent

had not contacted Murray Realty regarding her request, and he was unaware that

Murray Realty had returned the deposit.

20. Shortly thereafter, but also in the month of June 1992, Respondent

agreed to return the $13,120, less the value of services he had already

rendered, to Ms. Schuetze but requested additional time in which to so do since

he had spent the money. She agreed to give Respondent additional time.

21. On or about December 4, 1992, Respondent gave a statement to

Petitioner in which he agreed to return, within 12 months, the $13,120 less 10

percent for the services that he believed that he had already rendered, leaving

a balance of $11,808 to be returned.

22. At the time of hearing on October 13, 1993, Respondent had failed to

refund any of the money to Ms. Schuetze.

23. Respondent has no history of disciplinary action.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection

120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The parties were duly noticed for the formal

hearing.

25. License revocation proceedings are penal in nature. The burden of

proof is on the Petitioner to establish the truthfulness of the allegations of

the amended administrative complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris

v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Balino v. Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

26. Respondent agreed to perform certain services on behalf of Ms.

Schuetze, relating to the purchasing and renting of real property, for a fee

which she paid to him prior to any services being actually performed and any

written agreement or contract being entered into. Throughout the transaction,

his actions were that of a broker as contemplated by Chapter 475, Part I,

Florida Statutes (1991). Subsection 475.01(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1991).

Furthermore, Respondent's actions are not exempted from Chapter 475, Part 1,

Florida Statutes (1991). Section 475.011, Florida Statutes (1991).

27. Subsection 475.25(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent

part that a licensee may be disciplined when the licensee:

(b) Has been guilty of fraud,

misrepre l a f , t n e m l a e c s n c , n o i t a t n e s
o e

promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing

by trick, scheme, or device, culpable

negligence, or breach of trust in any

business transaction . . . .

28. Subsection 475.25(1)(b) contemplates that "an intentional act be

proved before a violation may be found." Munch v. Department of Professional

Regulation, Division of Real Estate, 592 So.2d 1136, 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

The evidence is compelling that Respondent was intentionally attempting to

circumvent the requirements placed upon him as a broker under Chapter 475, Part

I. This situation was the first time that he had encountered someone who wanted

to pay his fee in advance and he intended to take advantage of the situation and

acquire immediate access to the $13,120; and the only way to accomplish this was

to circumvent his responsibilities and duties as a broker, which he did.

29. Several written documents indicated that the $15,120 paid to

Respondent by Ms. Schuetze was a "deposit." However, of the $15,120, only the

$2,000 for the lots was a "deposit" as defined by Rule 61J2-14.008, Florida

Administrative Code, formerly Rule 21V-14.008, Florida Administrative Code. 6/

As a result, Respondent was required to place only $2,000 in a trust or escrow

account which he failed to do and had no intentions of doing. In fact,

Respondent had no escrow or trust account and had no intentions of establishing

one.

30. Also, although Respondent had intentions of returning Ms. Schuetze's

$13,120 to her, he had no intentions of returning the money within a reasonable

time. Ms. Schuetze paid to Respondent $15,120, and of that amount, only $2,000

was returned to her by Murray Realty, the realty company owning the lots. She

made a demand twice on Respondent for the return of the balance, i.e., $13,120,

and Respondent agreed twice to return the monies: once shortly after June 11,

1992, but requested additional time in which to so do and the last time in

December 1992, agreeing to return the monies within one year, less what he

considered the value of services already rendered. However, at the time of

hearing which was over a year after Respondent agreed to return the money,

Respondent had not returned any of the money.

31. Respondent, as the broker for the real estate transaction, was in a

position of trust, and he breached that trust. Petitioner has met its burden in

showing that Respondent is guilty of a breach of trust in the business

transaction.

32. Subsection 475.25(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent

part that a licensee may be disciplined when the licensee:

(d)1. Has failed to account or deliver to

any person . . . at the time which has been

agreed upon or is required by law or, in the

absence of a fixed time, upon demand of the

person entitled to such accounting and

delivery, any personal property such as

money, fund, deposit, check draft . . . .

33. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that

Respondent violated Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (1991).

Petitioner charged Respondent with being guilty of failing to account or deliver

a "deposit," namely $13,120. As discussed above, only the $2,000 for the lots

was a deposit within the meaning of Petitioner's promulgated rules applicable

hereto. When Ms. Schuetze made her two demands in June 1992 for the return of

the $15,120, Respondent agreed to after the second request, but requested

additional time and she agreed. Subsequently, in June 1992 and upon Ms.

Schuetze's request, Murray Realty returned her $2,000 "deposit." She had

received her "deposit" upon demand, albeit not from Respondent. Also, there was

an accounting of the $2,000 in that Ms. Schuetze was well aware that the $2,000

had been paid to Murray Realty as a deposit on two lots.

34. Regarding penalty, Subsection 475.25(1), Florida Statutes (1991),

provides that for a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b) or (d)1, the Real

Estate Commission may place a licensee on probation; may suspend a license not

to exceed 10 years; may revoke a license; may impose an administrative fine not

to exceed $1,000; may issue a reprimand, and any or all of the foregoing. Also,

Petitioner's Disciplinary Guidelines found at Chapter 21V-24, Florida

Administrative Code, 7/ provide that, except as otherwise provided, the

minimum penalty which may be imposed for each violation is a reprimand, or a

fine up to $1,000 per count, or both and that the recommended penalty imposed

for a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), is up to

five years suspension or revocation and of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida

Statutes (1991), is up to five years suspension. Further, the Disciplinary

Guidelines also provide for the consideration of mitigating or aggravating

circumstances in the imposition of discipline.

35. As a mitigating factor, in Respondent's almost 4 1/2 years as a

licensed broker, he has had no disciplinary action taken against him.

36. As aggravating factors, Respondent was intentionally attempting to

circumvent the duties and responsibilities placed upon him as a licensed broker,

and he has not refunded any of Ms. Schuetze's money even though he has agreed to

so do.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order

1. DISMISSING Count II of the amended administrative complaint; and

2. SUSPENDING the broker's license of Robert A. Schwartz for five years.

Provided, however, that the duration of his suspension may be lessened upon the

return to Ms. Schuetze of the $13,120.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of May

1994.

___________________________________

ERROL H. POWELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 26th day of May 1994.

ENDNOTES

1/ At the final hearing Respondent was represented by counsel, Mark K. Koenig,

Esquire. However, subsequent to the final hearing, but prior to the filing of

post-hearing submissions, Respondent discharged his counsel and proceeded pro

se.

2/ Subsequent to the hearing, the Department of Professional Regulation was

statutorily merged with the Department of Business Regulation and is now the

Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

3/ At the hearing Petitioner's Exhibit #10 was incorrectly identified. The

date of the document was incorrectly given as "May 29, 1992," but it should have

been, and is now corrected as, "July 31, 1992."

4/ Ms. Schuetze did not testify at final hearing nor was her testimony

presented by deposition. At final hearing, Petitioner made an ore tenus motion

to late-file her deposition which was granted; however, Petitioner later

withdrew its request. (By Order rendered September 29, 1993, Petitioner was

granted leave to take her deposition by telephone and perpetuate her testimony.)

5/ After a deposit on the two lots was made, there was a balance of $13,120.

Respondent testified that his fee was $6,500 per lot which included the

construction of the homes, totalling $13,000. The evidence is not clear what

the remaining balance of $120 was for.

6/ Deposit is defined as "a sum of money, or its equivalent, delivered to a

real estate licensee, as earnest money, or a payment, or a part payment, in

connection with any real estate transaction named or described in s.

475.01(1)(c), Florida Statutes." Rule 61J2-14.008, Florida Administrative Code,

formerly 21V-14.008, Florida Administrative Code.

7/ Changed to Chapter 61J-24, Florida Administrative Code.

APPENDIX

The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact.

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1.

2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2.

3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4.

4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7.

5 & 6. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 8. Also,

Petitioner's cite to the transcript refers to Respondent's

testimony regarding Ms. Runer, not Ms. Schuetze.

7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17.

8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10.

10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13.

11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15.

12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14.

13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18.

14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19.

15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13 and 21.

16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21.

17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

(Respondent did not number his proposed findings of fact. His paragraphs,

after the Statement of the Issues, are addressed.)

Paragraph one: Discussed in Preliminary Statement.

Paragraphs two and three: Rejected as contrary to the evidence.

Paragraph four: Partially accepted in finding of fact 4.

Paragraph five: Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-7, 9-14 and 20-

21.

Paragraph six: Partially accepted in findings of fact 9-11 and 14.

Paragraph seven: Rejected as contrary to the evidence.

Paragraph eight: Partially accepted in findings of fact 20-21.

Paragraph nine: Rejected as constituting argument, or a conclusion of law.

Paragraph ten: Partially accepted in findings of Fact 7 and 9.

Paragraph eleven: Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-7.

Paragraph twelve: Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 21.

Paragraph thirteen: Partially accepted in findings of fact 7, 9-11.

Paragraph fourteen: Rejected as contrary to the evidence.

Paragraphs fifteen, sixteen and seventeen: Rejected.

Paragraphs eighteen, nineteen and twenty: Partially accepted in

findings of fact 5-6.

Paragraph twenty-one: Rejected as constituting argument, or a conclusion

of law.

Paragraph twenty-two: Partially accepted in finding of fact 23.

Paragraph twenty-three: Partially accepted in findings of fact 9-12 and

14.

Paragraphs twenty-four and twenty-five: Rejected as consti
t u t i n g

argument, or a conclusion of law.

Paragraph twenty-six: Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 16-17.

Paragraph twenty-seven: Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-7.

Paragraphs twenty-eight through thirty: Rejected as constituting argument,

or a conclusion of law.

NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder

has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by

the evidence, argument, recitation of testimony, or a conclusion of law.

COPIES FURNISHED:

James H. Gillis, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Post Office Box 1900

Orlando, Florida 32801

Robert A. Schwartz

295 Pine Shadow Way

West Palm Beach, Florida 33414

Darlene F. Keller

Division Director

Division of Real Estate

Department of Professional

Regulation

Post Office Box 1900

Orlando, Florida 32802-1900

Jack McRay

General Counsel

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Suite 60

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended

order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit

written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be

filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION

FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 92-83928

DOAH NO. 93-2043

ROBERT A. SCHWARTZ

Respondent.

______________________________/

FINAL ORDER

On August 16, 1994, pursuant to s.120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the Florida

Real Estate Commission heard this case to issue a Final Order.

Hearing Officer Errol H. Powell of the Division of Administrative Hearings

presided over a formal hearing on October 13, 1993. On May 26, 1994, he issued

a Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a

part hereof.

The Respondent filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order. A copy of these

Exceptions is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof.

After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised,

the Commission rejects Respondent's Exception #1, which addresses Finding of

Fact #6, because there is nothing in the record to specifically indicate when

the transaction with Ms. Runer occurred. The Hearing Officer's finding in #6 is

also partially rejected regarding the words "a few years ago," as there is no

support in the record. What is known is that the Runer transaction occurred

previous to the Schuetze transaction. Therefore, the Commission substitutes the

word "previously" for the phrase "a few years ago."

The Commission rejects Respondent's Exception #2, which addresses Finding

of Fact #7. The Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer's finding is

supported by competent, substantial evidence.

The Commission rejects Respondent's Exception #3, which addresses Finding

of Fact #8, because the Hearing Officer's finding is supported by competent,

substantial evidence.

The Commission rejects Respondent's Exception #4, which addresses Finding

of Fact #17, because the Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent,

substantial evidence.

The Commission rejects Respondent's Exception #5, which addresses Finding

of Fact #11, because the Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent,

substantial evidence.

The Commission rejects Respondent's Exception #6, which addresses Finding

of Fact #12, because the Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent,

substantial evidence.

The Commission rejects Respondent's Exception #7, which addresses

Conclusion of Law #31. Based upon the record and the facts, the Hearing

Officer's conclusion is correct.

The remainder of the Respondent's Exceptions appear to be directed at the

Recommended Penalty. The Commission finds the penalty of a 5-year suspension to

be within the disciplinary guidelines and supported by the facts. In addition,

the Commission agrees that the Respondent may shorten the suspension simply by

making restitution.

After completely reviewing the record and based upon the Hearing Officer's

Findings of Fact, the Commission rejects the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law

#33. The Commission finds that there is a violation of s.475.25(1)(d)1, and

failure to account and deliver.

Therefore, the Commission rejects the Respondent's Exceptions and adopts

the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law (except for

Conclusion of Law #33 as stated above), and Recommended Penalty.

The Florida Real Estate Commission therefore ORDERS that the license of

Robert A. Schwartz be suspended for a period of five (5) years. The period of

suspension can be shortened if the Respondent makes restitution to Ms. Schuetze.

At the conclusion of the period of suspension, the Respondent is directed

to contact the Records Section of the Division of Real Estate at Post Office Box

1900, Orlando, Florida 32802, or [phone], to secure the proper forms for

reinstatement of the suspended license.

This Order shall be effective 30 days from date of filing with the Clerk of

the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. However, any party

affected by this Order has the right to seek judicial review, pursuant to

s.120.68, Florida Statutes, and to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

Within 30 days of the filing date of this Order, review proceedings may be

instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of

Business and Professional Regulation at 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309,

Orlando, Florida 32801. At the same time, a copy of the Notice of Appeal, with

applicable filing fees, must be filed with the appropriate District Court of

Appeal.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August 1994 in Orlando, Florida.

______________________________

Darlene F. Keller, Director

Division of Real Estate

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S.

Certified Mail to Robert A. Schwartz, 295 Pine Shadow Way, West Palm Beach,

Florida 33414; by U.S. Mail to Hearing Officer Errol H. Powell, Division of

Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-

1550; and a copy provided to Steven Johnson, Esquire, DBPR, Post Office Box

1900, Orlando, Florida 32801, this 3rd day of October 1994.

______________________________

Sarah Wachman

Agency Clerk